Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lucas v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

June 18, 2018

RICHARD LUCAS, JR., Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation [49] (“Final R&R) recommending granting Respondent United States of America's (“Respondent”) Motion to Dismiss [45] (“Motion to Dismiss”), denying and dismissing as untimely Movant Richard Lucas Jr.'s (“Movant”) Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to §2255 [42] (“Motion to Vacate”), and denying a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         On December 30, 2013, charged in a nine-count indictment, Movant pled guilty to one count of Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). As part of his guilty plea, Respondent agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. ([33.1] ¶ 11). On April 7, 2014, the Court sentenced Movant to 135 months imprisonment, which included 75 months for count nine, and 60 months for count eight, to run consecutively to count nine. ([41]). Movant did not file a direct appeal, and he is currently incarcerated with a projected release date of February 18, 2023. See Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited June 15, 2018).

         On June 30, 2017, Movant, proceeding pro se, filed his Motion to Vacate asserting that, under various decisions[1] rendered after his conviction and sentencing, his prior Georgia convictions no longer qualify as predicates for sentencing purposes. Movant contends that his motion is timely under § 2255(f)(3) ([42] at 5, 13). On October 30, 2017, Respondent filed its Motion to Dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that this action should be dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within one year of Johnson and because Mathis, Dimaya, and Dean do not restart the federal one year limitations period under § 2255(f)(3). ([45] at 5-6).

         On February 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final R&R, recommending granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, denying Movant's Motion to Vacate, and dismissing the action. The parties have not filed objections.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         1. Review of Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation

         After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). Where, as here, no parties filed objections to the Final R&R, the Court reviews it for plain error. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).

         2. AEDPA

         Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (“AEDPA”), a one year statute of limitations applies to § 2255 motions. Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir. 2017). The one-year statute of limitations runs from the latest of, (1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

         (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;

         (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.